"Beginning, Middle and End" of story telling. Is that concept dying due to universe building movies?

[Parasondox]

Ever get that down feeling in your gut and mind when you realise your holiday is over and you have to get back to work the next day?

Movies. Movies never changes. Well, it has and to some extent the big budget high stake movie that has "universe building" may have taken away the concept of beginning, middle and end. Like, an actual end not "oh look, in the last 30 mins of this movie we will introduce this and this and this and that and you better add those things because we want the gullible fan boys to know what's to come and build a universe.

Oh a "universe" of movies. Damn you Marvel Studios. Actually it's not a bad thing you did. You basically used the same concept of a comic but put that strategy into movie form. You know, each movie is an issue and each issue comes every... err... twice to 3 times a year, bloody expensive but with each issue, it leads to the final big world battle. In the MCU case it's Infinity Wars.

Anywho, is the concept of beginning, middle and end in a single movie, high stakes blockbuster movies, dying or getting better? Does it feel like some movies are there to set up another movie or several other movies in the future. Should Goyer and Orci stop writing? Sorry that bit was personal.

What's your thought on it all? Did that sentence make sense? My brain is on vacation.

Me fail English? That's unpossible.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Blockbusters have abandoned the idea of being single movies long ago. The franchise must flow, even if the plot gets eaten by giant worms.

 

[Fox12]

Good story telling will never die out entirely, but it's certainly getting worse. Much worse. If other studios started matching Marvel's success then it could be well and truly over for quality big picture entertainment. Thus far only Marvel (and Star Wars) have pulled it off. And I'm praying for the death of the former so that we can bury this awful idea.

I get it. It's a guaranteed money making machine. But the rules of good storytelling are being ignored for the sake of spectacle. When X-men and Marvel are the gold standards in film, the medium is in deep trouble. I've seen a number of people talking about how we're becoming visually illiterate. Movies aren't art anymore. They're a product.

Even if a great film does make it through, it will inevitably get made into a franchise monster.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

...

Anywho, is the concept of beginning, middle and end in a single movie, high stakes blockbuster movies, dying or getting better? Does it feel like some movies are there to set up another movie or several other movies in the future. Should Goyer and Orci stop writing? Sorry that bit was personal.

...

It seems the consensus is that the new BvS movie would be much better if they actually focused on the story itself, rather than shoehorning in so many set-ups for future movies in a desperate attempt to catch up to Marvel.

To be honest, I'm beginning to dislike this idea of a connected universe, because I really don't get anything out of it. I love some nice continuity in sci-fi and fantasy; I could sit here for days learning the complex political structure in ASoIAF, reading over all the history and culture, memorizing every inch of the map. But what does this increased complexity of comic book movies even offer? All it seems to do for me is make the events less believable, and necessitate that I keep up with this absurd deluge of comic book movies in order to understand what's going on. Sure, I'll probably still understand what's happening, but will I have the same understanding of the context and meaning of what I'm seeing if I haven't watched any of the other movies? I still can't shake the feeling that I'm missing some context if I haven't done my homework, and considering I'm lukewarm on comic book movies over all, this is enough to make me disinterested in all of them since I don't want to start rifling through he synopsis for each movie, nor do I wish to only get half the understanding.

 

[Schtimpy]

It's not the shared universes, it's the writers. Novel series don't have this problem. The first book has a beginning, middle and end, but is a beginning in whole. The last is the same, but an end instead of a beginning. Although, now that I think about it, it could be the source comics or just the fact that there are multiple writers. There are a lot of reasons why our current movies could be bad, but it could also be that no one will remember anything but Star Wars, Marvel, and that other thing, what was it?...in 50 years.

Shared and expanded universes can be good. It's just that spectacle is more important than substance now a days. Only thing I see fixing that is a single world language, as explosions are much more interesting than pathos when the pathos are a bunch of gibberish.

 

[infohippie]

Movies aren't art anymore. They're a product.

Big budget movies haven't been "art" in a very long time. It's a close parallel to the games industry, in fact - big budget productions are all about the spectacle and are written for mass consumption. If you are looking for "art" or anything even slightly out of the ordinary, you must turn to indie studios. In fact, the entire entertainment industry follows the same pattern - big showy stage productions vs little independent pieces shown in some obscure venue, or big name, highly produced commercial bands vs little known artists who are doing amazing things with their music. There are exceptions to the rule here and there, but this has been the overall shape of entertainment in general for longer than I've been alive, and I would bet it's been the case since Rome was a republic.

Shared and expanded universes can be good. It's just that spectacle is more important than substance now a days. Only thing I see fixing that is a single world language, as explosions are much more interesting than pathos when the pathos are a bunch of gibberish.

Or you could take an interest in foreign language productions and learn how it's possible to express things in some languages that are awkward or just don't work at all in other languages. Learn a bit about the language and culture of a few other countries and develop an appreciation for the conventions of their media and how they're different to those of your own native media. One world language, wow that sounds incredibly dull.

 

[Schtimpy]

Movies aren't art anymore. They're a product.

Big budget movies haven't been "art" in a very long time. It's a close parallel to the games industry, in fact - big budget productions are all about the spectacle and are written for mass consumption. If you are looking for "art" or anything even slightly out of the ordinary, you must turn to indie studios. In fact, the entire entertainment industry follows the same pattern - big showy stage productions vs little independent pieces shown in some obscure venue, or big name, highly produced commercial bands vs little known artists who are doing amazing things with their music. There are exceptions to the rule here and there, but this has been the overall shape of entertainment in general for longer than I've been alive, and I would bet it's been the case since Rome was a republic.

Shared and expanded universes can be good. It's just that spectacle is more important than substance now a days. Only thing I see fixing that is a single world language, as explosions are much more interesting than pathos when the pathos are a bunch of gibberish.

Or you could take an interest in foreign language productions and learn how it's possible to express things in some languages that are awkward or just don't work at all in other languages. Learn a bit about the language and culture of a few other countries and develop an appreciation for the conventions of their media and how they're different to those of your own native media. One world language, wow that sounds incredibly dull.

Dull, boring and useful for communication. And I'm not talking about me or some individual or something. I'm talking about large groups of people not wanting to be forced to learn our language just so we can have better movies. There's a big difference between one person not being interested in foreign films, and all our movies changing for a world market.

Also, one language doesn't mean all others go away. We have computers. We have to kill or let a language die in order for it to die now.

wow, that derailed, my bad.

edit: and I didn't say I wasn't interested in foreign films, you did.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I am kind of getting tired of "Here's the next movie, and the next movie, and the NEXT!" with Marvel. I'm still enjoying the movies, but...you guys might need to dial it back a bit here. I'd like to see a movie where the good guys just straight win. No hidden overlord, no "there's still more of them out there" no junior executive got away at the end. Just, "Yep. Hydra is dead. Killed them all. We're done."

It's one of the things that I like about kid/Disney movies though. Single movies. Zootopia, while perfectly capable of giving us a sequel, was self-contained and complete.

 

[Zenja]

...

Anywho, is the concept of beginning, middle and end in a single movie, high stakes blockbuster movies, dying or getting better? Does it feel like some movies are there to set up another movie or several other movies in the future. Should Goyer and Orci stop writing? Sorry that bit was personal.

...

It seems the consensus is that the new BvS movie would be much better if they actually focused on the story itself, rather than shoehorning in so many set-ups for future movies in a desperate attempt to catch up to Marvel.

To be honest, I'm beginning to dislike this idea of a connected universe, because I really don't get anything out of it. I love some nice continuity in sci-fi and fantasy; I could sit here for days learning the complex political structure in ASoIAF, reading over all the history and culture, memorizing every inch of the map. But what does this increased complexity of comic book movies even offer? All it seems to do for me is make the events less believable, and necessitate that I keep up with this absurd deluge of comic book movies in order to understand what's going on. Sure, I'll probably still understand what's happening, but will I have the same understanding of the context and meaning of what I'm seeing if I haven't watched any of the other movies? I still can't shake the feeling that I'm missing some context if I haven't done my homework, and considering I'm lukewarm on comic book movies over all, this is enough to make me disinterested in all of them since I don't want to start rifling through he synopsis for each movie, nor do I wish to only get half the understanding.

BvS is a good example of ignoring the need for a structured beginning middle and end. However, it also seems like they have no big plan either, the movie really is all over the place. Both as single movie and as an entry into the universe. Marvel has shown us what continuity offers the viewer is less need of a backstory. When the tesseract cube shows up in Avengers, they give you just enough information if you haven't seen any other movie to understand its role in that movie. It may come off as a cheap plot device but if you want to know more about it, you can watch Capt. America and Thor and get filled in. You don't have to as Avengers gives you all you really need for its story, but if you want more, it is available.

BvS seems to be going the other way and trying to weave everything together having many moments in it that will clearly be "filled in" in other movies but for now, audiences are just supposed to "roll with it" and are supposed to be confused so that it can be 'filled in' at a later date.

Do it right, and that feeling that you are missing context - is actually all optional. As well, despite it being optional, fanboys (who will be watching everything for the purpose of critique) have a lot of reason to discuss the movie, thus promote it. The way Marvel has been working its movies, is good. You can casually walk in and watch any Marvel Movie and not need to have seen any others and get a good self contained story. While they may elude to other movies, its more of a fun addition than necessity. Every movie should try to be self contained and any universe building should be merely references for the sake of the plot, not actual plot holes.

 

[infohippie]

Movies aren't art anymore. They're a product.

Big budget movies haven't been "art" in a very long time. It's a close parallel to the games industry, in fact - big budget productions are all about the spectacle and are written for mass consumption. If you are looking for "art" or anything even slightly out of the ordinary, you must turn to indie studios. In fact, the entire entertainment industry follows the same pattern - big showy stage productions vs little independent pieces shown in some obscure venue, or big name, highly produced commercial bands vs little known artists who are doing amazing things with their music. There are exceptions to the rule here and there, but this has been the overall shape of entertainment in general for longer than I've been alive, and I would bet it's been the case since Rome was a republic.

Shared and expanded universes can be good. It's just that spectacle is more important than substance now a days. Only thing I see fixing that is a single world language, as explosions are much more interesting than pathos when the pathos are a bunch of gibberish.

Or you could take an interest in foreign language productions and learn how it's possible to express things in some languages that are awkward or just don't work at all in other languages. Learn a bit about the language and culture of a few other countries and develop an appreciation for the conventions of their media and how they're different to those of your own native media. One world language, wow that sounds incredibly dull.

Dull, boring and useful for communication. And I'm not talking about me or some individual or something. I'm talking about large groups of people not wanting to be forced to learn our language just so we can have better movies. There's a big difference between one person not being interested in foreign films, and all our movies changing for a world market.

Also, one language doesn't mean all others go away. We have computers. We have to kill or let a language die in order for it to die now.

wow, that derailed, my bad.

A language not in natural day-to-day use is still pretty much "dead". Latin is considered a dead language, not because we don't know how to speak it any more but because nobody still does except for academic purposes. I don't want to see the world's languages phased out in favour of some standardised McDonald's of languages purely in the name of "efficiency". Screw efficiency, I want the world to remain varied and interesting.

Why should large numbers of people have to learn our language so we can have interesting films? They can make them in their language and if that means large numbers of English-only-speakers who dislike subtitles won't watch them, then oh well. Their (the aforesaid English speakers) loss I guess.

edit: and I didn't say I wasn't interested in foreign films, you did.

The implications are there in the phrase "bunch of gibberish".
Not that I want to argue about your taste in film, I'm glad you enjoy foreign films! I am just arguing that we would lose far more than we would gain if the world standardised on a single language for everyday use. Sorry if I came off as combative or accusatory.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

An interesting thought, but I say no.

The premise of what you see as the problem DOES have beginning, middle, and end. Anyone can setup possible cliffhangers with a "DUN DUN DUNNN!!!" if they want, but even with these superhero movies, these are clear stories within a larger story that have true progression. Books can tell the story without telling the entire life of the man. We don't need to know every aspect of Yossarian's life in Catch-22, just the parts relevent to the whole story. A story - a whole story - is a piece of the character's existence, even when it's stand-alone with no nuance to tease a sequel. Playing up the idea that one might write more to the story - or produce more movies, shows, etc. - is not the death of a story, just the addition of a few bells and whistles to keep our attention.

 

[Strazdas]

I do not agree with the premise. I find that even those large universe multistage movies still follow the traditional 3-act structure and tell a story in and of themselves while still being part of the big picture. There are movies that do not follow that structure (Especially popular with time travel movies) but they are and always were a minority. 3-Act structure works, people tend to enjoy it, and unless we manage to change that the movies are still going to use it.

Or you could take an interest in foreign language productions and learn how it's possible to express things in some languages that are awkward or just don't work at all in other languages. Learn a bit about the language and culture of a few other countries and develop an appreciation for the conventions of their media and how they're different to those of your own native media. One world language, wow that sounds incredibly dull.

When communications are so widespread and accesible worldwide nowadays the existence of multiple languages are just a hinderance. They have evolved as communication with outside was scarce, but now that worldwide communication such as these forums exist, multiple languages are no longer needed, in fact they are actively harmful for international communication.

And yes, i would as well like to watch movies all in single language and now have to resort to subtitles (because dubbing is a bad thing). but thats more of a sideeffect.

 

[Schtimpy]

-snip-

Language argument spoilered so others don't have to read it:

Spoiler

Yeah, sorry. I haven't sleep or eaten in like 3 days, I'm sick, blah. (It's probably 2 days, I'm such a baby) (ima little loopy)

DERP, gibberish is way too strong a word, and I'm a idiot. Of course they translate it from English, I don't know why I thought they wouldn't.

Still, dubbed is inferior to the original when it comes to subtly and meaning. Hollywood is expanding to different markets with different languages, and naturally the more basic movies will do better, as less is lost in translation. So, yeah. Oops...but not oops? I mean, the language point does still solve the issue. And the language I had in mind wasn't English, it's a created and agreed upon language that would be used in addition to our current languages. So we could have two versions of every movie if you wanted to send it over seas, one for everyone and one for the natives and people who would want to see the originals. It would phase out the other languages, but it would take time, and we would probably not see that during our lives if it started now. I think it would be a good idea have a Human language before we really get to space. There could be so much unnecessary conflict without it.

I used the word single wrongly. Also, you don't have to apologize for being "combative or accusatory" if you thought I was suggesting that everyone should learn English. You were right to call me out.

.

OT: I've been thinking about the whole "beginning, middle, end" thing, and I'm wondering now, why is that so important? In real life, we don't usually notice the beginnings as they happen during, well, life. Actually, beginning/middle/beginning/middle or middle/end/beginning sounds like it could be a interesting change. You don't have to follow any of the cliches to make a good story, it just makes it easier for both the creator and the consumer.

So, Beginning/Middle/End is a template, like the hero's journey and pretty elves? Does anyone know of anything that breaks or experiments with the Beginning/Middle/End cycle? I would love to see or read something like that.

 

[Zhukov]

No.

All the Marvel movies (that's what we're talking about here I assume) had pretty definite beginnings, middles and ends.

Yeah, they had sequel hooks and stingers and references and whatnot, but that didn't replace the traditional story structure. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Also, let's not forget that there are other movies being made. Quite a few of them in fact.

That said, I do expect that the Marvel model will becomes very influential over the next, oh say, twenty years or so, if only because of how much money it made, and continues to make. Even those of us who aren't all that keen on the movies would be silly to deny their success and popularity.

 

[hermes]

I will say: No

Not that there are movies that have issues with a three acts structure, but that it is caused by universe building movies. It is caused by the writers and their (lack of) skill. A good writer can make a good screenplay without having problems with hooks or stingers, a bad writer will try, but the result will be less than pretty. And before there were universe building movies, there were movies with planned sequels (see Back to the Future 2 or The Empire Strikes Back), with similar challenges.

Also, it is not something that is exclusive to movies. Serialized media has existed for a long time, and some is more successful than others to providing some introduction or closure. You might as well be complaining about A Feast for Crows or Ship of Tears being underwhelming in terms of self containment.

 

[Objectable]

Movies aren't art anymore. They're a product.

You do know that around the beginning of the film was when they started being "Product" right? Back when studios (Which I should note owned the theaters) cranked out hundreds of movies that were shown for like a week, after being filmed in three or so days?

 

[Fox12]

No.

All the Marvel movies (that's what we're talking about here I assume) had pretty definite beginnings, middles and ends.

Yeah, they had sequel hooks and stingers and references and whatnot, but that didn't replace the traditional story structure. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Also, let's not forget that there are other movies being made. Quite a few of them in fact.

That said, I do expect that the Marvel model will becomes very influential over the next, oh say, twenty years or so, if only because of how much money it made, and continues to make. Even those of us who aren't all that keen on the movies would be silly to deny their success and popularity.

I think this is partially true, but there's a bit more to it then that. Having taken screen writing classes, I can absolutely verify that the focus is not on making a great film, but on making a great franchise. The focus is on how you can build a series with broad appeal that can spawn sequels. he focus is always on the future, and how you can make more. The difference between this and my other literature classes was striking. There's a very different culture, and a very different M.O. It's pretty much textbook that you aren't really expected to produce quality work, or self contained narratives.

Whereas other mediums tend to focus on the substance of the work, or how you can improve as a writer, screen writing is all about the glitz and glamour of business. Money and business is built into the very framework of screen writing. Work commercials into the script. End on a stinger if you're a comedy. End on a hook if you're a drama. Built up anticipation for a sequel if you're a film. Have vague ideas for future stories, but don't plan too far ahead, because it may not mesh with the director's/actor's/studios (financial)vision. Make sure to appeal to at least X number of demographics. If you can appeal to all of them then excellent. Make sure you don't give too much detail in the script. Why does this scene take place in the rain? Rain is expensive, now it's taking place in an office building. Consider cost when thinking of locations. Better yet, don't give any details at all, the director will probably just change his mind anyway.

Honestly, it's a miracle that anything creative gets made at all.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Am I missing something since only Marvel has been doing this follow by DC attempt (movie side) at universe building?

I mean I know those teen related movies like Maze Runner but those are still beginning, middle and end right?

Given that there are more teen movies after Twilght which follows the triliogy formart (well splitting the third into two parts), I say the beginning, middle and ending is still in the lead.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

There's no correct way to tell a story, but more often than not only one way to do it well. The traditional Greek formula of five act structure really doesn't work when you're planning sequels, or trying simply to retain mystery for its own sake.

Retaining mystery, though often not so direct as an open cliffhanger, is one reason why the five act structure might need to be ignored. But there are other examples, such as the adaptation of the book The Wild Duck titled; "The Daughter," that critics had a hard time of deciding was good or bad. It created a faux 5th Act which is very organic as to what can be perceived to happen... it ends wiith a deliberately humanist touch that this was a pivotal point in a person's life, and how it reaches its conclusion, if ever, is utterly unknown and undecided save for what myriad of choices one might will to be.

No finality, no knowledge whether it is at all the tale of someone's end or a new beginning. With nothing resolved or truly known, save for what the protagonist did. Storytellers merely have more tools to tell a story now.... but decades ago you could still point to people like Hitchcock as fucking with traditional ideas of movie structure.

 

[Zenja]

No.

All the Marvel movies (that's what we're talking about here I assume) had pretty definite beginnings, middles and ends.

Yeah, they had sequel hooks and stingers and references and whatnot, but that didn't replace the traditional story structure. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Also, let's not forget that there are other movies being made. Quite a few of them in fact.

That said, I do expect that the Marvel model will becomes very influential over the next, oh say, twenty years or so, if only because of how much money it made, and continues to make. Even those of us who aren't all that keen on the movies would be silly to deny their success and popularity.

I think this is partially true, but there's a bit more to it then that. Having taken screen writing classes, I can absolutely verify that the focus is not on making a great film, but on making a great franchise. The focus is on how you can build a series with broad appeal that can spawn sequels. he focus is always on the future, and how you can make more. The difference between this and my other literature classes was striking. There's a very different culture, and a very different M.O. It's pretty much textbook that you aren't really expected to produce quality work, or self contained narratives.

Whereas other mediums tend to focus on the substance of the work, or how you can improve as a writer, screen writing is all about the glitz and glamour of business. Money and business is built into the very framework of screen writing. Work commercials into the script. End on a stinger if you're a comedy. End on a hook if you're a drama. Built up anticipation for a sequel if you're a film. Have vague ideas for future stories, but don't plan too far ahead, because it may not mesh with the director's/actor's/studios (financial)vision. Make sure to appeal to at least X number of demographics. If you can appeal to all of them then excellent. Make sure you don't give too much detail in the script. Why does this scene take place in the rain? Rain is expensive, now it's taking place in an office building. Consider cost when thinking of locations. Better yet, don't give any details at all, the director will probably just change his mind anyway.

Honestly, it's a miracle that anything creative gets made at all.

I am sure you are aware of "Adventure's in the screen trade" then by William Goldman. The book basically is an anti-thesis to everything you just said or at least explains how that entire class is a class on film theory, not on screenwriting. If every comedy were to end on a stinger, people would find it cliche and movies that didn't would start getting received well. Formula isn't without drawbacks in art. There are always counter theories, and to quote the most famous line in the book "Nobody knows anything". If they had a formula, BvS would have been better constructed.

For everyone claiming that Marvel has a 'formula' I would like to hear it explained. Because Iron Man is a movie series where the lead role is the comic relief. Captain America has no comic relief and really doesn't use comedy much for its storytelling. Ditto with Hulk. Thor has comic relief from a side character, not even supporting cast. Guardians of the Galaxy is more akin to an all around comedy. That is just if we look at comedy structure. If we look at villains and conflict it is diverse once again. I don't see a formula on display outside of liking the source material and making a 'fun' movie based around that.